What do you think of climate change?

[HarryStotle]

Did you read the paper and check all the math?

Yup. Looks good to me.

I know where you will go with this. You are not an expert and neither am I, therefore let’s default to the climate scientists.

Nope. I am defaulting to the physics and thermodynamics. The “atmospheric greenhouse effect” has no foundation in physics or thermodynamics. That was one of the central claims of the paper by a couple of respected physicists who were published by Cornell University.

If you want to backpedal to @LeafByNiggle lacks the expertise to question those claims, you are free to do so.

You are not free to claim that because you lack the expertise therefore you can default to climatologists.

The claims of the paper were that climatologists have no basis in physics or thermodynamics to make the claims that they do. For that we can look to other physicists. William Happer comes to mind.

Can you locate research where physicists provide the foundation for the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” in thermodynamics, physical kinetics or radiation theory? If you can I will be happy to read what you have.

If not, the default is NOT to punt to ‘climatologists know better than physicists.’

Show the work. The ball is in your court. I have shown the work of physicists who demonstrate in a peer-reviewed paper that the “atmospheric greenhouse effect” is not properly supported by physics.

You can play the game of ignorance is bliss to hold to your opinion, but it isn’t. Provide the pudding that holds the proof and we can continue. The fact or option that you cannot or choose not to does not make your case by default.

“…check all the math…”

(X → X) = arbitrary assumption
([X → Y] ^ [Y → ∞]) = infinite regress or unjustified premise
([X → Y] ↔ [Y → X]) = circular reasoning

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Just to be clear, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule so its effect AS A GREENHOUSE GAS is very likely to be indiscernible.

I disagree. As I recall the science indicates doubling of CO2 levels will add 1C in warming due to increased radiative forcing. If it were to then double again, it would add slightly less warming because the curve is logarithmic.

This is based on measurable radiative forcing at known CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Perhaps, but “radiative forcing” isn’t based on known physics or thermodynamics. See my last two posts and Section 3.7 The assumption of radiative balance (p.58) in the cited paper.

 

[Theo520]

Perhaps, but “radiative forcing” isn’t based on known physics or thermodynamics. See my last two posts and Section 3.7 The assumption of radiative balance (p.58) in the cited paper.

I don’t see where your paper disputes radiative forcing as known physics, It seems to raise questions on the assumptions used to apply the physics in models to create a radiative balance for the earth.

The discussion of Schack’s work at end of 3.7 seems to affirm CO2 radiative forcing as basic physics, just with different assumptions on the impact.

 

[Theo520]

By saying it is part of a feedback loop you are admitting that CO2 has an effect on temperature. That’s what feedback means. This is contrary to HarryStottle’s claim that “so they could not have been the cause.”

No, Harry is right in stating CO2 could not have been the cause of the warming trend, This is 100% confirmed by the multiple ice core samples.
But as a feedback it could have contributed to the intensity. It’s an effect of other warming, not a cause of the warming trend. It’s also very simple to explain, a warming ocean releases more CO2 than a cooling ocean.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Perhaps, but “radiative forcing” isn’t based on known physics or thermodynamics. See my last two posts and Section 3.7 The assumption of radiative balance (p.58) in the cited paper.

I don’t see where your paper disputes radiative forcing as known physics, It seems to raise questions on the assumptions used to apply the physics in models to create a radiative balance for the earth.

The discussion of Schack’s work at end of 3.7 seems to affirm CO2 radiative forcing as basic physics, just with different assumptions on the impact.

The idea of radiative forcing itself may not be in contravention to known physics, but as it is used to describe the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, it cannot be derived from physics because the assumption of “radiative balance” as the baseline for calculating the effect of C02 is unsupported.

…the assumption of a radiative balance, which plays a central role in the publications of the IPCC and, hence, in the public propaganda. In the following it is proved that this assumption is physically wrong. (p. 58)

Also, see 3.8.3 In the kitchen: Physics-obsessed housewife versus IPCC

Nevertheless, there is no additional “backwarming” effect of the bottom of the pot.

“Backwarming” seems to be the authors’ quaint way to express the notion of “radiative forcing,” no?

 

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

LeafByNiggle:

The lag is small, and so CO2 could still be part of a feedback loop - affecting and being affected by temperature simultaneously. But more importantly, even if CO2 was not the major cause of warming in the past, that does not mean it is not the major driver of warming now.

Yes, increasing CO2 levels are very likely a feedback to cyclical natural warming. So what?

By saying it is part of a feedback loop you are admitting that CO2 has an effect on temperature. That’s what feedback means.

If true, then whenever CO2 levels were high, a feedback loop would entail an inexorable rise in temperatures given consistency in other factors.

The problem is that C02 levels haven’t impacted the climate in that way with any consistency.

If scientists wish to merely assert “feedback loop” they must be able to explain those other factors that are implicated. If they cannot, then they are merely engaged in wishful thinking.

To make the case they (and you) need to detail when and how the “loop” is triggered.

Clearly, you didn’t watch the Tony Heller videos where he addresses this point of runaway feedback or feedback loop. If a “runaway” loop is triggered by C02, which is what the alarmists claim will happen, then they must be prepared to explain why the global temperature didn’t simply “runaway” when C02 levels were far higher on Earth than they are now. Why aren’t we like Venus? What mitigated the loop in ages past?

It is one thing to make a claim, an entirely different thing to substantiate or explain it. At this point, the alarmists are nowhere near explaining it, or accounting for the factors in play, and under what conditions it will trigger and when it won’t. The science, in all of those regards, is hardly “settled.”

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Just to be clear, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule so its effect AS A GREENHOUSE GAS is very likely to be indiscernible.

I disagree. As I recall the science indicates doubling of CO2 levels will add 1C in warming due to increased radiative forcing. If it were to then double again, it would add slightly less warming because the curve is logarithmic.

This is based on measurable radiative forcing at known CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

See Section 1.1

It is obvious that a doubling of the concentration of the trace gas CO2, whose thermal
conductivity is approximately one half than that of nitrogen and oxygen, does change the
thermal conductivity at the most by 0, 03 % and the isochoric thermal diffusivity at the
most by 0.07 %. These numbers lie within the range of the measuring inaccuracy and other
> uncertainties such as rounding errors and therefore have no significance at all.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Did you read the paper and check all the math?

Yup. Looks good to me.

I know where you will go with this. You are not an expert and neither am I, therefore let’s default to the climate scientists.

You are exactly right on where I will go with this. How perceptive of you. However you just admitted that you are not an expert. So when you said “Yup, looks good to me” you could not possibly have been answering truthfully the question “Did you check all the math?” I don’t not know where you are going by contradicting yourself in this manner. Perhaps you are saying it is unnecessary for you to check all the math? You found a guy who ways what you want to hear, therefore choose to trust his analysis and ignore the many opposing analyses that have been published. Rather than guessing any further I will see if you can clarify your confusing position.

Perhaps, but “radiative forcing” isn’t based on known physics or thermodynamics.

Yes it is. Just because the guy who says what you like says that does not make it true.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

By saying it is part of a feedback loop you are admitting that CO2 has an effect on temperature. That’s what feedback means. This is contrary to HarryStottle’s claim that “so they could not have been the cause.”

No, Harry is right in stating CO2 could not have been the cause of the warming trend, This is 100% confirmed by the multiple ice core samples.

There have been multiple warming trends. Not all of them have the same cause. And any one single warming trend has multiple causes. This current warming trend - in the industrial age - is caused in the largest part by rising CO2 levels.

But as a feedback it could have contributed to the intensity. It’s an effect of other warming, not a cause of the warming trend. It’s also very simple to explain, a warming ocean releases more CO2 than a cooling ocean.

I agree. That’s why we call it a positive feedback loop. Two things both affect each other in a reinforcing manner. Eventually it will reach a limiting point where the feedback will stop and conditions will plateau.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

By saying it is part of a feedback loop you are admitting that CO2 has an effect on temperature. That’s what feedback means.

If true, then whenever CO2 levels were high, a feedback loop would entail an inexorable rise in temperatures given consistency in other factors.

But since other factors do not remain constant, the behavior of this particular feedback can present differently under different conditions, or not all.

If scientists wish to merely assert “feedback loop” they must be able to explain those other factors that are implicated. If they cannot, then they are merely engaged in wishful thinking.

No, there are statistical methods of attributing positive correlation in the presence of unknown factors.

 

[ecuman]

Climate change is inevitable but if efforts are made to change, change what? If the solution is to curtail business in some way then it becomes a threat to our nation’s wellbeing. The standards for most climate"treaties" do more to damage our economy than to enforce a global law. If the solution is to raise taxes, taxes only support more power in DC, they abuse their power too much and redirect money to unrelated pork projects for votes. The US already does more to limit climate impact then any other country and they do it without taxes and restrictions.

 

[Theo520]

You seem to be protesting the model assumptions, and I don’t disagree.

My recollection is that all else being equal, doubling CO2 will increase radiative forcing and contribute 1C in warming.

But all else is not equal and the model assumptions on feedbacks are more conjecture than science.

It is reasonable to assume past natural warmings did increase CO2 levels and that fact added warming on top of what we experienced from orbital variation or changes in sun activity.

 

[Theo520]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[phaster]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

Just to be clear, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, but the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is minuscule so its effect AS A GREENHOUSE GAS is very likely to be indiscernible.

How did you arrive at that scientific conclusion?

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Déjà vu

it seems useless to banter about [hard science] details when far too many don’t even understand basic science of CO2 (which has various knock on effects),… for example did some reading of old post(s) on this website and found an Apr ’08 discussion,…

What do I tell the children about global warming?

then an Dec ’14 discussion,…

Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches

sadly it seems even today catholics (and 99.99% of the general population) don’t have a basic “scientific” understanding of what is going on

FWIW years ago, segments of physics community have shown the paper to be lacking merit

Falsifying the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effect: G. Gerlich & R.D. Tscheuschner | Page 2

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010IJMPB..24.1309H

WRT understanding basic subtle concepts that too few in the public at large grasp,…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

basically this image is a mashup of figures in a yale public knowledge study,… that show “Earth’s climate is stable within certain limits. If global warming is small, climate will return to a stable balance. If it is large, there will be dangerous effects”

(see “figure” p21)

on the lower bound “the average temperature of the Earth’s surface during the last ice age” is estimated to be between 46 and 51 degrees F

(see “figure” p20)

on the upper bound “if no additional actions are taken to reduce global warming, what temperature do you think it will be by the year 2050,…” the estimate is between 60 and 61 degrees F

(see “figure” p29)

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2010_10_Americans%E2%80%99-Knowledge-of-Climate-Change.pdf

and an increase of 1 degrees C in the global average temperature might not seem that big a deal, until one considers it to be akin to a fever caused by an infection or illness in a human being

Fever Symptoms, Causes, Temperature, Types & Home Remedies

 

[Theo520]

and an increase of 1 degrees C in the global average temperature might not seem that big a deal, until one considers it to be akin to a fever caused by an infection or illness in a human being

That is a lame analogy as the average temp varies far more.

 

[Padres1969]

Yeah no… it’s accepted science from around 98% of climate scientists.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

phaster:

and an increase of 1 degrees C in the global average temperature might not seem that big a deal, until one considers it to be akin to a fever caused by an infection or illness in a human being

That is a lame analogy as the average temp varies far more.

Not over an appropriately long averaging period, like 40 years. Short-term averages, over 1 or 2 years do vary more.

 

[Theo520]

Not over an appropriately long averaging period, like 40 years. Short-term averages, over 1 or 2 years do vary more.

How does that fit with the human body, which doesn’t vary??
It’s a cute but inappropriate analogy. Body temp varies at most 0.5C in a day, A fever is actually life threatening if too high.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Not over an appropriately long averaging period, like 40 years. Short-term averages, over 1 or 2 years do vary more.

How does that fit with the human body, which doesn’t vary??
It’s a cute but inappropriate analogy. Body temp varies at most 0.5C in a day, A fever is actually life threatening if too high.

The purpose of the analogy was very narrow. Don’t read more into it than was intended. The sole purpose of the example was to be a reminder that 1 degree C is not always an inconsequential change. And that point does need to be made because I have seen many people here (not you) pooh-pooh temperature differences of that order in the average temperature of the globe.

 

[Ender]

However you just admitted that you are not an expert. So when you said “Yup, looks good to me” you could not possibly have been answering truthfully the question “Did you check all the math?”

You have several times stated that you are not an expert on climate science, thereby rendering your opinion of scientific claims as irrelevant as you believe HarryStotle’s to be. The thing is, if you take the position that only accredited scientists can legitimately hold forth on scientific claims then you cannot reasonably make this response:

HarryStotle: … “radiative forcing” isn’t based on known physics or thermodynamics.

You cannot admit to being incapable of understanding the underlying science and also assert that this or that scientific position is either true or false. By your own standard, your only justifiable response to a scientific argument is “I believe (or disbelieve) it because the scientists I have chosen believe (or disbelieve) it.”

“Yes it is” is not available to you. “Because my guys say so” is all you can legitimately claim.